The Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Electoral Districts

How might the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 impact voting across the country?

---

Published February 17th, 2026

Written by Evan Randle

As recently as last month, the Supreme Court of the United States of America seemed intent on weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965, according to the New York Times. Hearings for the case took place in mid-October, and the court has shown its willingness to rule against said portion of the act. Exploring the issues of the act and case, and how the case could impact voting across the country, is crucial to forecasting the 2026 elections and beyond.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as the Brennan Center claims, was enacted thanks to the efforts of Civil Rights activists during the 1960s protest era. It stipulated that the 15th Amendment prohibited states from denying the right to vote based on race, mandated language assistance be provided to voters with lower proficiency in English, instated federal examiners to ensure minority voters were not intimidated or otherwise inconvenienced at polls and organizations with a history of prejudice require explicit permission from a higher power before changing voting laws. The Voting Rights Act is widely acknowledged as successful, and disparities in registration rates among different races dropped significantly after its enactment. As the U.S. government claims, the Act has been strengthened multiple times over the decades since its enactment. Efforts to weaken the Act effectively began in 2013, when the Supreme Court eliminated the use of preclearance, which — as the Brennan Center argues — opened the proverbial floodgates for restrictive voting laws in conservative states. This current case is another example of the Roberts Court expressing doubt about the continued relevance of the Act.

The oral argument of the October 2025 case demonstrated conservative justices’ concerns with the Voting Rights Act as currently observed. The crux of the current issue centers on whether state legislatures can consider race when forming election districts. In this regard, the primary doubt expressed by SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh was whether race-based redistricting was still permitted by the Voting Rights Act or if enough time had passed (or progress been made) since the passing of the Act that said this stipulation was no longer relevant. As The Hill reports, SCOTUS Justice Barrett focused less on whether the Act is still relevant, but instead wondered if state legislatures had the proper authority to redistrict to the extent necessary to combat prejudice. In another point of difference, SCOTUS Justice Alito doubted whether Louisiana, the state in question for the case, was compact enough in its racial distribution to warrant the formation of race-based districts. Though their motivations seemed different during the oral argument, the conservative judges on the court generally seemed in favor of weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965 further.

What, then, would a prohibition on race-based districting create? One alternative presented by the State Court Reporter would be provisions enacted by specific states, primarily those with legislatures skewing to the Democratic Party. While doing so could mitigate some of the changes to the Voting Rights Act, they would pale in comparison to the federally endorsed interpretation of the Act as practiced until now. Some organizations, like Common Cause, fear that racial gerrymandering and voter suppression would occur as a result, and worry that “fair representation in our country would be in serious jeopardy.” The Christian Science Monitor has covered how others, like the conservative legal activist Ed Blum, believe the weakening of the Act would prohibit gerrymandering based on “allegedly remedial purposes”. Regardless of one’s stance on the Act itself, almost all commentators agree that the prohibition of race-based redistricting would significantly benefit Republicans in state elections going forward. According to the New York Times, Republicans could gain as many as 12 more seats in the House of Representatives if the Supreme Court proceeds as anticipated.

There are many reasons for redistricting, and — as seen in 2025 — many are motivated by outcome, not principle. Race-based voter discrimination has not ended in 2025, and may only be more relevant as widespread fears of deportation take root even among naturalized citizens. The Voting Rights Act of 2025 not only assuages some of these concerns but also provides a rationale for redistricting more principled than which party shall earn more seats in the legislature. Regardless of how it impacts election outcomes, the stipulations of the Voting Rights Act encourage a more equitable voting system in a country plagued by a history of prejudiced electoral practices.

---